Passive-Aggressive Communication

In many organisations, leaders focus on the obvious problems: missed deadlines, slipping standards, or open disagreement. Yet one of the most corrosive behaviours is often the quietest, passive-aggressive communication. It appears in small moments, subtle tones, and carefully worded messages. It rarely looks like direct resistance, but it erodes trust, clarity, and cohesion far quicker than most leaders expect.

Passive-aggression is not raised voices or open confrontation. It is conflict wrapped in courtesy, resistance delivered through politeness. Because it hides behind plausible deniability, it can be difficult to recognise until the damage is already underway.

At its core, passive-aggressive communication follows a familiar pattern. Someone feels overlooked, frustrated, or insecure, but instead of addressing the issue directly, they express it indirectly. They use sarcasm, pointed humour, subtle corrections, dramatic rephrasings, unnecessary clarifications, or emotionally loaded sign‑offs. Their words give the appearance of agreement; their tone and timing tell a different story.

This behaviour creates three major problems for teams.

First, it destroys clarity. High‑performing teams rely on simple, direct communication. Picture a manager asking for an update and receiving, “I suppose I can send something… I’ll add it to my never‑ending list of jobs.” The words suggest compliance. The tone creates uncertainty. A straightforward request becomes something the leader has to decode. A routine instruction becomes a debate about intent. When clarity disappears, every decision slows down and teams drift into friction instead of focus.

Second, it breaks trust. Trust grows when people say what they mean and mean what they say. Passive‑aggression creates the opposite environment. Team members start to search for hidden meaning, wonder what is being said privately, and question whether colleagues are speaking honestly. A culture that demands people “read between the lines” quickly becomes a place where people avoid speaking up when it matters most.

Third, it undermines ownership. Extreme Ownership requires every individual to own their actions and their part of the mission. Passive‑aggression avoids ownership entirely. Instead of raising issues directly, people use phrases such as, “I’m not trying to overstep…”, “No disrespect, but…”, or “I guess I’m the only one who…”. These lines disguise blame as humility. They allow a person to criticise without taking responsibility. The ego is protected; the team pays the price.

So how should leaders deal with passive‑aggressive communication?

Start with ownership. Assume there may be gaps in expectations or communication that you have not made clear. Acknowledging this does not excuse the behaviour, but it gives you a productive place to begin.

Then simplify the standard. Set clear expectations for every channel: communication must be professional, direct, and free of emotional colouring. No sarcasm. No hidden messages. No criticism disguised as guidance. Group chats and emails are for clean operational updates. Concerns are raised privately.

Next, prioritise and act. Do not try to address every example at once. Choose the most recent or most visible instance and use it to reinforce the standard. Deal with one issue at a time, calmly, directly, and without emotion.

Finally, apply decentralised command. Make sure every team member understands what they own: their tone, their clarity, and their part in maintaining trust across the team. Encourage them to raise concerns early and directly, without resorting to indirect communication.

Passive‑aggressive communication is subtle, but its impact is not. Left alone, it spreads quietly and turns small misunderstandings into deep fractures. Addressed early and consistently, it becomes an opportunity to reinforce standards and strengthen trust.

High‑performing teams communicate directly, take responsibility, and support one another with intent. They grow stronger because every message adds clarity rather than taking it away. That begins with leaders who refuse to let subtle behaviours undermine the mission.